ILNews

Senate passes new COA panel bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate has given its OK to add three judges to the state's second highest appellate court.

By a 47-2 vote just before 7 p.m. Monday, senators passed Senate Bill 35 that would create a sixth Indiana Court of Appeals panel and increase the number of judges from 15 to 18 starting in January 2010. Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington, and Sen. James Lewis, D-Charlestown, voted against the legislation, though no one spoke against the bill on the floor.

Bill author Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville - chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously authorized this bill and also the leader of the Commission on Courts that's repeatedly recommended the panel's creation in past years - reminded his colleagues that this new panel of judges has been recommended for at least five years, and that it's inevitable and becomes more pressing each year.

"Each year we need it a little worse," he said, referring to a growing appellate caseload nearing 3,000 a year.

During a Senate Judiciary meeting in January, Chief Judge John Baker said the court achieved a clearance rate of 100 percent last year and maintains an average turnaround time for decisions of about 1 ½ months - two points that allows Indiana's intermediate appellate court to be able to say it's the most efficient court of its kind nationally.

While the court is doing well to keep up and the chief judge hasn't made any official request for more judges, both he and Bray said the need will eventually become critical as the ever-growing caseload continues but the judicial resources remain the same. If the General Assembly doesn't add more judges, Bray said the court will be left with options of writing fewer opinions, spending less time on cases, or decreasing the quality of its judicial work - none of those are legally desirable, he said.

"This may be subject to budget constraints and may not happen this year," he said. "But once again, we keep postponing the inevitable. If the fiscal people could find anyway to get this in, I think it would benefit our state, our legal system, and everyone."

A hurdle may arise for the legislation now that it moves to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives: The bill's fiscal impact statement estimates spending $1.3 million the first year and $2.2 million thereafter, which could cause more legislative apprehension.

If the General Assembly passes the legislation and the governor signs it into law, the Judicial Nominating Commission would begin the selection process later this year, according to the proposal.

Reps. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, and Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, have agreed to sponsor the appellate judge panel legislation in the House.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT